St, Mary's University
378th Meeting of the Faculty Senate
October 15, 2004
1:30 PM,Alkek 106
Present:SenatorsBentch, Byrd, Curet, Cutting, Ebben, Hampton, Hill, Kerr,Lené, Lesher, Maloney, Novoa, O’Connor, Padmanabhan, Talarski, Uhlig,
and Wolff.
Excused:Senators Boggess, Gomez, Juarez, and Menger.
Opening Prayer:The meeting was opened at 1:30 PM with a prayer offered by
Senator Hill.
Approval of Minutes for the 377th Meeting:After minor corrections were
suggested, Senator Curet moved to accept the minutes of
the 377th Faculty Senate Meeting as amended.Senator Padmanabhan seconded the motion, and the minutes were approved subject to the
suggested amendments.
President’s Report:
Meeting with the Vice President for Academic Affairs – President Hampton
stated that the Executive Committee had not met with VPAA Manuel, but
was scheduled to meet with him on October 21st.
President Hampton then listed twelve items which had been done or had
yet to be done as follows:
1.A letter was sent to VPAA Manuel regarding committee
appointments, and Dr. Manuel had replied that committee appointees would be notified by letter.
2. A letter is to be sent to VPAA Manual regarding Academic
Freedom for Clinicians.
3. A letter is to be sent to VPAA Manuel regarding the time frames
in which certain items would be discussed by the Academic
Council.
4. He had looked into the availability of the University Facilities
Master Plan and was told by Bill Tam, the Facilities
Administrator, that the Plan was available in PDF format through
the University website.
5. A letter was sent to University President Cotrell regarding the
use of University vans.
6. A letter was sent to University President Cotrell regarding the
need for an entity to whom students in the Athletic Department
could take confidential issues and complaints.
7. A letter was sent to VPAA Manuel regarding the membership in
the Core Curriculum Groups.This issue has been satisfactorily
resolved.
8. He will request VPAA Manuel to ask the Deans of the
various Schools to each publish their criteria for merit salary increases.
9. He will publish a schedule for upcoming Faculty Senate
Committee meetings.
10. He will send the Faculty Senate minutes by e-mail to all faculty
members as they are approved.
11. He will send a schedule of future Faculty Senate meetings by
e-mail to all faculty members.
12.A letter was sent to University President Cotrell and VPAF
McCoy requesting a meeting with members of the Faculty Senate to discuss enrollment and budget issues.The meeting was held on October 8th, and President Hampton reported that President Cotrell and VPAF McCoy were very helpful, gave good answers, and expressed a willingness to meet again for further discussions.President Hampton provided a list of the questions asked at the meeting and a summary of the resulting discussions to be appended to the Faculty Senate minutes (see Appendix 1).
He also e-mailed a list of the questions asked at the meeting, along with a list of the members of the Senate who were in
attendance, to the University faculty (see Appendix 2).
Senate President Hampton noted that some changes to the current Faculty roster were needed and asked the Senate Secretary Lené to make the necessary changes before the next meeting.
Faculty Senate Committee Reports:
Committee A:Senator Lesher said that her understanding was that the committee was to look for ways to encourage more discussion between deans and their departments rather than between the Academic Council and the Senate.Issues which need discussion are: a) the issue of including the Faculty Senate President on the Academic Council, b) the issue of criteria for salary increases, and c) the need for more meetings within each school.A suggestion was made that the members of the
Academic Council be encouraged to take leadership training, with the
understanding that the members of the Senate would be willing to also
take such training.
Committees B, C, D and E – No reports.
University Committee Reports:
No reports were available from the following: Academic Development
Council, Alumni Association, Athletic Cabinet, Budget Committee, Campus Beautification/Design Committee, Campus Environment Committee, Enrollment Management Task Force,Institutional Review Committee, Student Judicial Committee, and the University Parking Committee.
Facilities Master Planning Committee – President Hampton reported on the discussion of the Facilities Master Plan which occurred at the Board of Trustees meeting on October 13, saying that the final approval of the plan depends on the resolution of concerns expressed by the Board members.Comments by Trustees at the meeting included:
1. St. Louis Hall should be moved to Phase I and not have the renovation sequence drive the project nor have the occupant
relocation drive theproject.The opportunity to use Garni Hall as a temporary location for St. Louis Halloccupants should not drive the process.
2. Garni Hall should be razed and replaced with a new science building.
3. The SET Building footprint infringes into the Pecan Grove.
4. The facilities management area which includes the Physical
Plant/Police Compound and the Storage/Receiving Building should be relocated to some other location on campus.
(See Appendix 3 for a report on the Facilities Master Plan Committee, sent to the members of the Faculty Senate by President Hampton, which includes responses to the above comments.)
An emergency meeting of the Faculty Senate was suggested to discuss this issue.President Hampton suggested a meeting on November 5th, asked senators to submit questions by e-mail, and asked if he should invite Facilities Administrator Bill Tam and Registrar Louisa Avitua-Treviño to the meeting.
University Benefits Committee –Senator O’Connor reported that the committee met with AON, our insurance broker, on October 14th, to look for health benefit products which allow more control over costs and benefits.He said that people will need to be better educated, and so a health fair is being planned to accomplish this.He also pointed out that a small number people in a given pool tend to account for much of the health costs.He asked that faculty and staff members send stories of their experiences with health care to him or Jerry Toddso they can take them to the next meeting.Senator O’Connor said that there is an ICUT initiative to build a larger pool in order to reduce the cost of health care, and that they are looking into the possibility, but the insurance companies are not interested in the idea.He said the committee is also looking into the possibility of a benevolence fund to help with costs, sliding scales for premiums, and more contributions from the University.
Old Business and New Business:Nothing presented or discussed.
Adjournment:Senator Curet moved to adjourn the meeting, and was seconded by Senator Byrd.The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Gene W. Lené, Secretary
2004-2005 Faculty Senate
APPENDIX 1 – SUMMARY OF FACULTY SENATE MEETING WITH UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT COTRELL AND VICE PRESIDENT FOR ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE McCOY REGARDING BUDGET ISSUES.PROVIDED BY FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT ANDRE HAMPTON.
Subject: Outcome of Meeting regarding budget issues
Here is a summary of what I think happened at the meeting with President Cotrell and VP McCoy: Senators let me know if you have any comments regarding this summary.
(1) What is the source of the funds for the "beautification process"-all
stages, Gateway," andbeyond?
The cost of the project is an estimated $4,000,000-$5,000,000.In order to meet this cost two years ago, the University issued tax exempt bonds which are payable over ten years. The debt service on the bonds is $500,000 per year.The University's annual operating budget is about $70,000,000.The University is conducting a capital campaign in order to raise the money to pay the bonds. At this point the University has raised $1,800,000 to retire the debt.
(2) Are administrative raises limited to the same percentage as are the raises of the
faculty and staff.Is your raise (President Cotrell) excluded?
The administrative pay raises are limited to the same pool as are the rest of the faculty and staff.Dr. Cotrell' s "raise" that was reported in the San Antonio Express News was a one time bonus that was bestowed by the board of trustees two years ago.His salary is set by the board of trustees and the board utilizes criteria from the Association of Governing Boards in evaluating his performance and determining his annual compensation.
(3) Why was the budget based on 600 entering students?
The University followed the practice that it has followed for some time.It estimated the entering class based on the average of the number of students who entered in the previous 3 to 4 years. The 600 number was supported by that calculation. Going forward the university will use last years' entering class as the starting point to establish the budget for the next year, but will of course aim to recruit more students.
(4) Would you put into place a required process that assures meaningful faculty
consultation and participation in the process of making budget cuts?
President Cotrell and VP McCoy wanted to make it clear that the University is not in a condition of financial exigency and in fact is in good condition. The university has a $90 million endowment, $190 million in assets and $25 million in debt. The university could have met the budget without budget cuts without significantly increasing its debt or depleting the endowment or its assets. However, the university decided that the conservative approach was to determine where cost could be cut. It was contemplated that ideas would be generated from the ground up so that the budget cuts would be the least burdensome to the effected parties. Unfortunately there was no uniformity of process in the effected areas and therefore some departments experienced more dissatisfaction than others. The administration is open to a continuing dialogue on how to collaboratively implement budget reductions, if any are required in the future. VP McCoy wanted to make it clear that faculty can contact her if budget cuts in the departments under her supervision cause problems for the faculty.
10/20/2004
Subject: Budget Issues
Members of the Faculty Senate and President Cotrell and Vice President of Administration and Finance Rebeckah McCoy met on October 8th to discuss the following questions raised by the Senate:
(1) What is the source of the funds for the "beautification process" -all stages,
Gateway," and beyond?
(2) Are administrative raises limited to the same percentage as are the raises of the faculty and staff? Is your raise (president Cotrell) excluded?
(3) Why was the budget based on 600 entering students?
(4) Would you put into place a required process that assures meaningful faculty consultation and participation in the process of making budget cuts?
The meeting was very helpful and a summary of the outcome of the discussions will be included in the minutes of the October 15th Faculty Senate meeting once they are approved next month. In the meantime feel free to approach any of the following members of the Senate if you have any questions about the meeting:
Sue Bentch
Caroline Byrd
Rose Marie Cutting
Andre Hampton
Mary Lynne Hill
Marcella Lesher
Kathleen Maloney
Bob O'Connor
Elaine Talarski
Paul Uhlig
10/18/2004
APPENDIX 3 – FACILITIES MASTER PLANCOMMITTEE
REPORT.PROVIDED BY FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT
ANDRE HAMPTON.
Subject: Master Facilities Plan Revisions
Facilities Master Plan Committee Report
October 13, 2004
1. Progress on Culebra Entrance: completion date by December 15, 2004
2. Discuss Board of Trustees comments with regard to Facilities Master Plan
were as follows:
A. St. Louis Hall should be moved to Phase I and not have the renovation
sequence drive the project nor have the occupant relocation delay the
project. The opportunity to use Garni Hall as a temporary location for
St. Louis Hall occupants should not drive the process.
B. Garni Hall should be razed and replaced with a new science building.
C. The SET Building footprint infringes into the Pecan Grove.
D. The facilities management area (Physical Plant/Police compound and
storage/receiving building) should be relocated to some other location
on campus.
3. Response to Part A: St. Louis Hall will be moved to the final project of Phase I with
costs adjusted to provide for temporary offices in portable buildings on or off campus.
The renovation of St. Louis Hall will be kept completely separate from the razing and
replacement of Garni Hall.
4. Response to Parts B and C: Dr. Kaufman (Dr. Rezaie and Jerry Theis) are working on
a response that provides two buildings since the Garni footprint is limited on the north
(cemetery), on the east (Gateway), south (St. Louis Hall), building height (St. Louis
Hall), and west (Life Science). The response will include an inventory of space
provided by the new building and estimated construction costs. The inventory will be
categorized as lab, classroom, storage, prep room, faculty office, admin/support space
and an additional 33% for general circulation space (stairwells, restrooms, hallways).
An initial projection will be made as to the additional student population that might be
appropriate for the additional space.
5. Response to Part D: The site plan will show the Physical Plant compound relocated to
parking lot D and subsequent impact on campus parking, Pecan Grove, etc.
6. Review decision to delay the relocation of 36th Street Entrance and the impact on the
perimeter fence and entrance project. Review of concept for perimeter fence and 36th
Street entrance.
10/18/2004